Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed amendment filed on June 9, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons noted below. The amendment to the drawing is accepted by the Examiner. Claims 1-17 are now pending in the application.
Explanation of Rejection
Claim rejection – 35 U.S.C. §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
In reference to claims 1-17: the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The requirement for subject matter eligibility test for products and processes requires first, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. §101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature).
In the first step, it is to be determined whether the patent claim under examination is directed to an abstract idea. If so, in the second step of analysis, it is to be determined whether the patent adds to the idea "something more" or "significantly more" that embodies an "inventive concept."
In the instant case, claim 1 is representative and it is reproduced here with the limitations that are part of the abstract idea in bold:
A method of evaluating insulation performance of a low-temperature storage tank, the method comprising:
a first operation of measuring, by an infrared measurement device, an amount of infrared energy of a sensor pad;
a second operation of assuming, by the processor, a temperature of a substrate of the sensor pad as a first temperature value;
a third operation of calculating, by the processor, a temperature of a first surface of the sensor pad by using the amount of infrared energy measured from the sensor pad and the first temperature value;
a fourth operation of obtaining, by the processor, a second temperature value of the substrate from a transient heat conduction equation by using the temperature of the first surface as a boundary condition;
a fifth operation of determining, by the processor, whether the first temperature value is equal to the second temperature value; and
a sixth operation of, when the first temperature value is equal to the second temperature value, determining, by the processor, the calculated temperature of the first surface as a final temperature of the first surface and obtaining a value of heat flux infiltrating the low- temperature storage tank from the outside.
Step 2A:
Prong I: The claim recites the steps of " measuring an amount of infrared energy of a sensor pad", " assuming a temperature of a substrate of the sensor pad as a first temperature value ", “calculating a temperature of a first surface of the sensor pad by using the amount of infrared energy measured from the sensor pad and the first temperature value”, “obtaining a second temperature value of the substrate from a transient heat conduction equation by using the temperature of the first surface as a boundary condition”, “determining whether the first temperature value is equal to the second temperature value”, and "when the first temperature value is equal to the second temperature value, determining the calculated temperature of the first surface as a final temperature of the first surface and obtaining a value of heat flux infiltrating the low- temperature storage tank from the outside". These limitations could be carried out as a purely mental process (at least in a some relatively simple situations) and/or they could amount to a mathematical calculation (for example, obtaining a second temperature value of the substrate from a transient heat conduction equation by using the temperature of the first surface as a boundary condition). Therefore, the recited method falls in the abstract idea grouping of mental processes and/or mathematical concepts at Prong 1 of the §101 analysis.
Prong II:
This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application at Prong 2 of the §101 analysis because the claim does not recite sufficient additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim recites the method comprising the additional element steps of " measuring an amount of infrared energy of a sensor pad [using] an infrared measurement device". However, the it is considered to be merely a data gathering at a highest level of generality. Further, the amended claim includes a processor to carry out the abstract steps or ideas as noted in steps first to sixth. However, these additional elements are merely generic computer processing components that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
The courts have found that adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)) is not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or make the claim qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not recite applying the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does the claim affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim amounts to manipulating data: “a method of evaluating insulation performance of a low temperature storage tank.” The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the notification that is output. The claim establishes a "the evaluation" as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Step 2B:
Finally, at Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as discussed above with regard to Prong 2. Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claims 7 and 12 are analogous to claim 1, except that claim 7 directed to a system for evaluating insulation performance of a low-temperature storage tank, and additionally recites “a sensor”, “an infrared measurement device” and “a processor” are additional elements separate from the abstract idea that need to be considered at Prong II of the §101 analysis. However, these additional elements are merely generic computer processing and sensor components that are invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which do not cause the claim as a whole to integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea. Claim 12 is directed to a computer program and similar to claim 1 of the instant application. Therefore, claims 7 and 12 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as well.
Dependent claims 2 and 13: the instant claims are directed to iterative computation, and are considered a mental and/or mathematical computation and do not change the §101 analysis.
Dependent claims 3 and 14: the instant claims are directed to the idea of using the infrared camera to obtain the amount of the infrared energy of the sensor pad, and is considered a data gathering at the highest level of generality and does not change the §101 analysis.
Dependent claims 4, 9 and 15: the instant claims are directed to characterizing of the sensor pad for the purposes of providing data points in the infrared measurements and do not change the §101 analysis.
Dependent claims 5, 10 and 16: the instant claims are directed to characterization of the sensor pads for the purposes of gathering infrared energy readings and would be considered insignificant extra solution activity do not change the §101 analysis.
Dependent claims 6, 11 and 17: the instant claims are directed to characterizing infrared black coating and do not change the §101 analysis.
Dependent claim 8: the instant claim is directed to the extended computational analysis of the heat flux under the assumption of a temperature of the substrate and is considered a purely mental process and does not change the §101 analysis.
Art of Interest
Seok et al. (U.S. PAP 2014/0369378, hereon Seok) discloses a method and an apparatus for testing thermal performance of a coating layer are provided. The method for testing thermal performance of a coating layer involves obtaining a first thermal gradient by exposing one side of a metal base test piece to heat and exposing another side of the metal base test piece to a cooling air; obtaining a second thermal gradient by exposing a coating layer side of a coating layer test piece to heat and exposing an opposite side to a cooling air; calculating an exterior temperature Tf of a coating layer of the coating layer test piece and a temperature Te of a boundary side of the coating layer using the first thermal gradient; and calculating a temperature difference TΔ between the exterior temperature Tf of the coating layer and the temperature Te of the boundary side of the coating layer (see Seok, Abstract).
The instant claim differs in that “it measures the amount of infrared energy of the sensor pad” makes measurements of temperatures and calculates a temperature of the first surface based on measurements of the sensor pad and the infrared energy; then it obtains a second temperature value from a transient heat conduction equation, and compares whether the first temperature is equal to the second temperature. If the temperatures are the same, then using the equilibrium temperature as a final temperature and obtain a value of heat flux infiltrating the low temperature storage tank from the outside.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed amendment filed on June 9, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons noted above, and further explained below
Step 2A, Prong II: Applicant(s) argued that “claim 1 as amended now explicitly recites that the first operation of measuring infrared energy is performed “by an infrared measurement device” and that the second through sixth operations are performed “by a processor., [these added features] …do not recite a mental process because the claims contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind” (see argument, page 8, second paragraph).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reason: we know from the previous office action that steps second through sixth convey abstract idea of human mind and/or computational analysis. The idea of using physical instrument to collect data cannot certainly be a human thought process because everything we collect data in a physical world requires somehow always using a physical instrument. For instance, to measure an area one would require a tape measure, infrared or laser distance meter, thermometer, anemometer, barometer and so on. In other words, measurement instruments are used to gather data at a high level of generality. Therefore, the fact that we use infrared measurement device, as in the instant application, does not provide a significantly more than abstract idea per se. Further, the processor is used basically as an extension of a human thought process. In fact, a human mind with the generic components noted in the instant application is actually equipped to perform the limitations noted from second to sixth steps.
The Example Applicants illustrated to make a point, Example 37, claim 2 of USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility list “determining the amount of use of each icon over a predetermined period of time” is different from the instant application because claim 2 of the example specifically requires “determining the amount of use of each icon using a processor that tracks how much memory has been allocated to each application associated with each icon over a predetermined period of time; and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use.” As noted here, this example goes beyond “the number of [usage] of each icon over a predetermined period of time”.
The claim does not recite any particular real-world actions that are taken as a result of the notification that is output. The claim establishes a "the evaluation" as the general field-of-use, but does not recite a particular practical application being carried out within that field-of-use. Therefore, the claimed invention does not appear to be limited to the use of the mental process or math in a particular practical application, but instead the claim appears to monopolize the mental process or math itself, in any practical application where it might conceivably be used.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS DESTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ELIAS DESTA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights